clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 345   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

HOLLINS VS. MAYER ET AL. 345
The trustees declined to pay over the money, except upon
the order of the Court, and submitted whether this undivided
residue should be paid to the complainant or to the creditors
who had not assented to the deeds. The Chancellor, when the
cause was first submitted to him, on the 12th of April, 1860,
made the following remarks.]
THE CHANCELLOR:
Assuming the validity of the deeds of trust exhibited with the
bill, I am of opinion that the sum now remaining in the hands
of the trustees, is, in the language of Exhibit A, " subject to
the order and control of John Hollins, his executors, adminis-
trators, or assigns," and that upon the death of said Hollins,
the complainant, his administrator, may rightfully demand it of
the trustees, who would not be in any way responsible for its
application by the administrator.
It may, however, be a question whether these deeds can be
assumed to be valid. In the case of Albert and Wife vs. Jones
et al., decided at the last term of the Court of Appeals, a deed
with auch stipulations was adjudged to be invalid (7 Gill, 446),
but in the subsequent case of Kettlewell vs. Stewart, the Court
permitted the same question to be re-argued, and now hold it
under advisement. It would, therefore, seem to be best to
defer the decision of this case until the Court of Appeals shall
have pronounced their opinion in the cause now before them,
which will probably be in June next, and which, it is presumed,
will finally settle this much vexed question.
[The cause was again submitted and argued, on the 11th of
March, 1851, when the Chancellor delivered the following
opinion.]
THE CHANCELLOR :
In the remarks made by me in this ease, on the 12th April,
1850, it was suggested that the decision of the point involved
in it be suspended until the case of Kettlewell vs. Stewart, then
depending in the Court of Appeals, should be decided. That

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 3, Page 345   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  August 16, 2024
Maryland State Archives